I don't think anyone ever saw any tibetan version of this "Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini", precisely because it does not exist. The guys in Aro even give a "sanskrit" title to it but it's nowhere attested.

At best, it's been written directly in English, but like everything Aro related, it's a fake. The text is said to belong to the terma of khyungchen aro lingma, but since this personage never existed, you can deduce that her termas (and existence) are simply the invention of the british founder of the Aro "lineage".

Yes, I'd also like some more info, in particular if anyone knows of Tibetan lamas saying anything about Aro. It does seem odd, but if Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche recognized Ngakpa Chogyam as a tulku, I assume there would be people in the Tibetan community who could verify this. . . and if not, there might be evidence of that?

I've never heard of Dilgo Khyentse recognizing Aro Gter outside of what Aro Gter has said. Nor have I heard of any major lineage holder recognizing the Aro Gter teachings as legitimate. If someone could point out otherwise, please do so.

How foolish you are, grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention! - Vasubandhu

dakini_boi wrote: but if Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche recognized Ngakpa Chogyam as a tulku

Khyentse Rinpoche never recognized Chogyam as a Tulku. In the early legends that Chogyam liked to spread about his being a tulku, the recognition is presented as coming from Chime Rigdzin Rinpoche (CR Lama). But CR Lama is not there anymore to confirm that.

Statements, such as Chogyam's, about recognition always come from the one who wants to be recognized. I don't think anybody (in the hierarchy) of Tibetan Buddhism recognizes any validity to Chogyam's claim as a tulku, or to the authenticity of Khyungchen Aro Lingma since nobody has ever heard of her either in exile or in Tibet. The whole issue is fake and made up by Chogyam. The fact that they can't produce a single original text from that Aro Lingma is pretty telling in itself.

Traditionally a new terma has to be checked and recognised by high lama, who's high enough to do this job. Khyentse wangpo did lots of this kind of works I have heard.

If aro gter was not in Tibetan, then it's hard for great master to check it I guess.They said Dudjom Rinpoche recognised the terma but asked him to keep secret for 15 years. I am wondering what kind of text he showed to Rinpoche, if there was such a thing.

Usually the master who confirms the text needs to sign for the authenity, just like recognising a tulku needs a formal letter and a ceremony.

what I don't understand is: there must be a lot of people asked some qualified masters, but there's no comment from them at all?

About CR lama, I am a bit confused. didn't CR lama openly recognised him as a qualified teacher? (of course it's not totally related the authenity of terma, but....)

narraboth wrote:Traditionally a new terma has to be checked and recognised by high lama, who's high enough to do this job. Khyentse wangpo did lots of this kind of works I have heard.

If aro gter was not in Tibetan, then it's hard for great master to check it I guess.They said Dudjom Rinpoche recognised the terma but asked him to keep secret for 15 years. I am wondering what kind of text he showed to Rinpoche, if there was such a thing.

Usually the master who confirms the text needs to sign for the authenity, just like recognising a tulku needs a formal letter and a ceremony.

what I don't understand is: there must be a lot of people asked some qualified masters, but there's no comment from them at all?

About CR lama, I am a bit confused. didn't CR lama openly recognised him as a qualified teacher? (of course it's not totally related the authenity of terma, but....)

Everything about CR Lama was a bit confusing actually. I never asked him about this subject but those that did all, to my knowledge, heard him say that Chogyam wasn't a tulku. Many people also heard Ngakpa Yeshe Dorje, Chogyams first teacher, say this and other things.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

Heruka wrote:a student wants clarity, not confusion.a teacher that adds confusion, is no teacher at all.

eh, it's not my intention to question CR lama.I personally didn't know him (obviously because I lived in Taiwan), but I have seen their sangha in Poland, I will say they have remarkable devotion. Some people feel some of them are 'strange', but they are not much stranger than some other western sangha I think. Also great master Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche shows his great care to CR lama's sangha: he went to Poland every year even he is in his 80s. I think CR lama must have been a good lama.

About clarity and confusion... yes, students want clarity, but probably western students or logic-style students like me want clarity more. I don't think Tibetan people emphasize 'clarity' that much

Concerning Ngakpa Chogyam, also called Ngakchang Rinpoche,there are many people who have opinions. I don't think many of these people actually ever met him. Yet they "know." They certainlyhaven't met any of the Tibetan Lamas who speak highly of him.

Suffice it to say that in some circles there seems to be some controversy. Any Lama who accomplishes much, or seems eccentrichas his or her detractors. In the Vajrayana, we have to hold PureView and acknowledge that unusual teachings may be suitable for some people. At the very least we can adopt an agnostic position.

ngodrup wrote:Concerning Ngakpa Chogyam, also called Ngakchang Rinpoche,there are many people who have opinions. I don't think many of these people actually ever met him. Yet they "know." They certainlyhaven't met any of the Tibetan Lamas who speak highly of him.

It sounds as if you have met some Tibetan Lamas who speak highly of him. Who are they and what have they said?

Suffice it to say that in some circles there seems to be some controversy. Any Lama who accomplishes much, or seems eccentrichas his or her detractors. In the Vajrayana, we have to hold PureView and acknowledge that unusual teachings may be suitable for some people. At the very least we can adopt an agnostic position.

I disagree. At the very least we should be deeply suspicious of people who claim to have high spiritual accomplishments, especially when they are surrounded by controversy. A true Vajrayana guru can lead his students to enlightenment but a false teacher can create endless lifetimes of confusion and suffering.

It is well-known throughout the tibetan buddhist world that the so-called Termas of Khyungchen Aro Lingma are fakes because Aro Lingma herself has never existed. The entire Aro thing is based on Chogyam's imagination. The Aro people are unable to show a single tibetan text of these so-called Termas, precisely because they don't exist or have been elaborated in English by Chogyam himself. Their entire "lineage" is fake. And lineage is the key in Vajrayana/Dzogchen.

It would be quite strange if they can't offer any Tibetan text of the 'terma.'

The definition of 'gter ma' is something made a period ago, and hidden as treasure, and then been discovered. gter ma doesn't need to be written in Tibetan, it can be in Orgyen language etc, but it would be weird if it's written in modern English. Even when it's a mind gter ma, it should still be like how it was originally made.

If it's 'translated' by dakini or what, there still should be a Tibetan original; and it's easy enough for Tibetan masters to see if the Tibetan one is really good or just badly written.

If it's a pure vision, it's another story. Surely Dieties can give teaching in English. But not everyone can have pure vision, most people have only illusion or day dream. 'Pure vision' needs to be carefully checked.

I perfectly know what termas are. You did not understand what I wrote. I said that they can't show any text in tibetan belonging to the termas of Aro Lingma. Their lineage is supposedly based on these Termas. Since Aro Lingma is presented as being Tibetan, we can expect that her termas are in Tibetan. However they don't exist because she never existed.

mutsuk wrote:I perfectly know what termas are. You did not understand what I wrote. I said that they can't show any text in tibetan belonging to the termas of Aro Lingma. Their lineage is supposedly based on these Termas. Since Aro Lingma is presented as being Tibetan, we can expect that her termas are in Tibetan. However they don't exist because she never existed.

Ah yes, of course.Tibetans had a census. We know the names and dates of every village ngakpa.On top of that, every text was preserved, nothing was lost during the peacefulliberation.

Seriously. Have you not heard that less than 20% of Tibetans were literate?And those were typically monastics? That's why "village ngakpa" was in somecircles pejorative. I'm not surprised in the existence an oral tradition. Tibetansoften say "each village has its own tradition." Family lineages are not unusual.

I say this only to raise doubt in the face of detractor's certainty.Let people have their opinion. But who can say for sure? Everybodyis entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.The jury is out.

I'm afraid that in this case "the jury" is very much in.The Aro folks dont hold any of the commitments of a legitimate lineage.They are not ngakpa either if you ask me. Since the very foundation of their samaya has been grossly breached (by using lineage masters inappropriately in an attempt to validate their claims) they can lay no claim to being ngakpa.

Last edited by Josef on Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.